The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Negative, wit some prep work like building ramps to get the right elevation, tanks can do artillery barrages. The last time the US did so on a wide scale was Korea. We even trained to do so on the Patton as a 19E. Don't know if the 19k guys did or not.

Now you've got me thinking. Could you (in theory) combine direct and indirect fire roles in the one fighting vehicle i.e. design and engineer an effective, conventional tank with a steep enough elevation to replace tracked artillery platforms in some circumstances. I'm not saying you could engineer a 155mm gun into an AFV and avoid all the drawbacks/limitations mentioned previously when it comes to larger bores in a conventional frame but could you for instance equip an armored force with one platform toting say a 125mm gun that could handle both roles even if it fires less of an explosive charge than its conventional 155 mm tracked artillery brethren. (Noting of course that most modern armies seem to be transitioning, at least in part, to missiles in the H/A role. The idea would be to do away with conventional tracked artillery and just utilize M270s or 142s etc backed up by your new 'tanks' and/or towed artillery as needed.)

I could see a role for an "Excalibur lite" round for tanks to fire. If the tank can loft the round high enough, it can glide towards whatever target is being lased. Since it will impact the target directly, it probably doesn't need to be as big as a 155mm to get the job done.

Since it will impact the target directly, it probably doesn't need to be as big as a 155mm to get the job done.

Eh, the HE darts used in Vulcano are only 90mm. Perfectly fine, just sleeve it the right way in a sabot like they already do it to fire from 127mm and 155mm. Terminal result equivalent to a 120mm mortar shell, except terminally guided and with a "slight bit" more range. Would have to rebuild it with fins and add a cartridge case though...

Overtasked comes to mind. Tank crews and gun crews train to different missions. Tanks are maneuver assets. Guns are positional assets. There is some overlap but the main difference is that tanks need to find the enemy and kill the enemy. Guns just need the target area. To ask the gunner to know both how to saturate an area and how to zero in on a target is simply overtasking the poor bugger. Hell, just keeping munition expenditure in mind would be a nightmare.

All true sir but I had in mind the fact that modern fire missions use a lot less ammunition due to technical innovation than was previously the case. Also you would be substituting the new platform for tracked artillery units, not eliminating the former artillery components of the brigade etc. So there wouldn't be any actual reduction in the number of tracked vehicles required or deployed. And you are right of course there would have to be a new generation of reloading systems, probably including vehicles to support the increased munitions expenditure.

The point is that they're two different missions with different requirements. There's only 24 hours in a day. How do you expect a single crew to learn how to maneuver in a tank battle and how to set up a fire mission on the same day? And can they be proficient in both?

To follow up on my last point, since you cannot have one single crew to do both missions and need two crews, would it not make better sense to give them equipment specifically made for their mission than to bastardize a single system that both crews have to struggle to make it work?

For the cost of a single LEO C2, the Guns Regiments would want two 105s with supporting trucks.

Negative, wit some prep work like building ramps to get the right elevation, tanks can do artillery barrages. The last time the US did so on a wide scale was Korea. We even trained to do so on the Patton as a 19E. Don't know if the 19k guys did or not.

No. What you have there, is ramps built so that tanks could fire at "super elevation" to engage visible targets in the mountains. Long range direct fire. Spotted and adjusted by the tank commander.

The last tank capable of indirect fire was the M-4a3 (105). There was 3 assigned to each tank battalion HQ in the ETO.

Modern tanks are not equipped with sights capable of indirect fire. Nor will you find any TFTs for indirect fire for tank guns.

The point is that they're two different missions with different requirements. There's only 24 hours in a day. How do you expect a single crew to learn how to maneuver in a tank battle and how to set up a fire mission on the same day? And can they be proficient in both?

Not to mention the specialized equipment need to be added to those tanks for accurate indirect fire. Or the support elements required to allow them to shoot accurate fire. And the cost of redesigning those PGMs so that they fire out of a high velocity system.

Again...it's been done in SVN by B Co. 1-69 Armor at Ben Het. I don't believe they had LOS from the firing positions. Orienting for direction wouldn't be particularly difficult essentially using SAM and then (literally) boresighting along two aiming posts staked on the LOF. Orienting for elevation would have been the kicker. Assuming ramps built along ONE direction of fire, known projo weight and weapon MV you might be able to extrapolate an elevation setting applied with a gunner's quadrant and then execute an "untrained observer" mission with a TRAINED F.O. shooting W.P. as a spotting round.

Once impact was observed (absolutely no guarantee IMV short of an aerial observer) it'd be possible to adjust fire laterally only within very narrow limits. Range could only be adjusted by adjusting elevation, again using a gunner's quadrant probably applied directly to the barrel.

Now, mind you...this adjustment would take for fcukin' ever to get steel on target and would likely prove a huge waste of engineer and A.O. assets.

Just sayin'.

"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

Again...it's been done in SVN by B Co. 1-69 Armor at Ben Het. I don't believe they had LOS from the firing positions. Orienting for direction wouldn't be particularly difficult essentially using SAM and then (literally) boresighting along two aiming posts staked on the LOF. Orienting for elevation would have been the kicker. Assuming ramps built along ONE direction of fire, known projo weight and weapon MV you might be able to extrapolate an elevation setting applied with a gunner's quadrant and then execute an "untrained observer" mission with a TRAINED F.O. shooting W.P. as a spotting round.

Once impact was observed (absolutely no guarantee IMV short of an aerial observer) it'd be possible to adjust fire laterally only within very narrow limits. Range could only be adjusted by adjusting elevation, again using a gunner's quadrant probably applied directly to the barrel.

Now, mind you...this adjustment would take for fcukin' ever to get steel on target and would likely prove a huge waste of engineer and A.O. assets.

Just sayin'.

Wiki says they could see the muzzle flash of the enemy arty.

Until the first of March, the camp had received intensive fires from heavy artillery pieces located in reinforced, dug in positions well inside Cambodia. At times as much as one round every 45 seconds had been rained on the Allied camp for protracted periods. However, the enemy guns were so located that their muzzle glow could be observed from the friendly post thus allowing the Allies to predict the incoming artillery in sufficient time to preclude heavy casualties. In an effort to penetrate the barriers protecting these enemy artillery pieces, the tanks were employed in an indirect fire role, using concrete piercing fuzes. The collocated artillery battery's fire direction center and spotter aircraft assisted with fire adjustment. This met with only limited success since the 90mm ammunition was unable to penetrate the Red defensive positions.

"...Muzzle glow could be observed from the friendly post...", however, may or may not have included this particular firing line. Wiki also says something about a co-located FDC and spotter aircraft available.

And aiming posts.

And gunner's quadrant.

Again...just sayin'...it's been done recently. Definitely a non-standard mission for tankers. Absolutely would need lots of help to make it happen and very questionable as to any effectiveness regardless.

"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

I thought that's what a combat engineer's job was. In order of importance, first install the latrines, then the showers and then barbecue pits, portable freezers, lighting and other combat essentials. I mean what else do they do??